Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Cocky

Many became incensed by my suggestion that a desperate-for-vindication Andrew Breitbart had engaged in a subtle form of blackmail to get what he wanted. Today, Breitbart himself has more or less confirmed that idea, except he's leaving out the subtlety:

When asked by anchor Erica Hill if he has more information to release about Weiner, Breitbart replied, "I have no intention to release any more information. I think that we're heading down the proper path."

The clear message: If we do not head down what Breitbart considers the proper path, other photos will come out. Do we call this "an implied threat" or just "a threat"? The latter, methinks.

Breitbart may hold back data, but others will release it. The New York Post reporter who misrepresented himself to get close to Gennette Cordova -- and then mischaracterized what she said -- exemplifies the new breed of journalism.

Back to Breitbart:

"And the next day, for three days - Saturday, Sunday and Monday, it was excruciating - the plan that he concocted and he's going to have to take responsibility for, and the organized left and the media framed me as the person who was the hacker.

So Anthony Weiner concocted a "plan" to have the "organized left" frame Breitbart...? And we thought Alex Jones was a conspiracy theorist! You think Andy's gonna bring George Soros into this?

(Side note: It has been ages since anyone accused yours truly of being in the pay of Evil Soros. Very disappointing.)

That said, nobody said that Breitbart did any hacking.

"They also falsely accused me of releasing the name of the girl in Seattle. They said that I savaged her. But we chose not to give her name.

Did anyone make that accusation against Breitbart? (I haven't read every story, so I'm honestly not sure.) Was it not Breitbart's sources who ultimately made the name of Gennette Cordova well-known?

Breitbart goes on to say that the Tweeted pic, in and of itself, did not prompt him to publish his story. Rather, he was spurred into action because

He took down all of his photos. The girl in Seattle took down her Facebook page. She took down her - this was all Friday evening.

Breitbart is here implying that Gennette participated in a cover-up. This statement may not qualify as "savaging" Gennette, but it is certainly unwarranted.

"I think we were vindicated at first after a three-day frenzy of trying to attack my journalism,"

His journalism was attacked first and foremost because Breitbart's own tweets indicated that he did not trust his sources, and that he had run the story without vetting the people who provided it. He did not even know the name of the person who fed him the information. Breitbart should own up to his own Twitter record, because that record was the basis of the attacks. Weiner's confession can't change the fact that Breitbart printed first and vetted later. Sloppy journalism is not justified by the final outcome. A bad driver who reaches his destination is still a bad driver.

Breitbart's implied threat goes a long ways toward vindicating my previous post. But don't expect Andrew Breitbart to ride high for long. He's more vulnerable now than ever before, although he doesn't know it. Hubris begets sloppiness. In the immortal (and deliciously appropriate) words of Han Solo: "Don't get cocky."

Breitbart a journalist -- really? Since when has he done more than regurgitated the slanted and fabricated tales others have delivered to him?

I still don't know what to make of all this. I was chagrined to see Wiener's press conference yesterday. I totally believed someone might have gained access to his account, because why the hell would a sitting congressman do something that stupid. To hear him say he tweeted the photo to a complete stranger as a joke is beyond stupid, though. How was he to know she would have appreciated whatever dubious humor there is in a photo of his shorts? I'm a woman and would consider receiving such an image from a stranger some form of harassment.

And as you pointed out before Wiener's admission, it's still possible that his relationship with Megan Broussard was a trap. The fact that Breitbart is threatening people from "going after" Broussard is telling. (I'm not saying she should be hounded, but her part in this warrants further scrutiny.)

I don't think Breitbart will release the photo he is holding back, which Broussard said on ABC was of Wiener's naked parts. ABC said it "licensed" the photos it showed from Broussard, which usually means she received some kind of consideration. Did she "license" the photos to Breitbart's site for free? Would she give away the money shot? She could probably get a tidy sum for it from a tabloid.

I hope Weiner hangs in there, just to be obstinate, but have a feeling that the House investigation will show he used government assets (phone and BlackBerry) so he'll be reprimanded or perhaps worse.

posted by Anonymous : 11:06 AM

His journalism?? Oy! Hubris is alive and well.

Breitbart takes unvetted sources as a rule, not the exception. That's not to let Weiner off the hook. He was stupid and made himself vulnerable by acting out in what ever you call this digital age nonsense. And being absolutely reckless.

But please, let us 'not' confuse Breitbart with the word journalism, even the compromised version we're living with these days. The self-righteous almost always fall into the same trap--zinging those stones in all directions until their own houses shatter and come tumbling down.

As for Obama's economic advisors? It's the revolving door!

posted by Anonymous : 12:01 PM

Hubris begets sloppiness.

The corollary: having a lot of influential friends in the media enables a man to cover-up a heck of a lot of sloppiness.

Perhaps Weiner isn't the only powerful person the guy is blackmailing at this time. What if the scale and scope of the operation that trapped Weiner is altogether more vast?

Right, you guys. Breitbart is the villain in this story. No matter whether the "perp" himself admits what really happened, you won't let go. Because, unlike Weiner, you can't admit you were wrong.

Blackmail involves extorting something of value from someone else. Well, I guess you could say that silence from that arrogant gasbag Weiner is worth a lot.

posted by Anonymous : 12:32 PM

Anthony Weiner needs to show the photo to his friend on the Daily Show and copyright the photo. Andrew Breitbart has been on the Hannity Show and said he showed the photo to several people. Too telling, in 'showing' and well, he will release the photo!

Anthony Weiner should donate any money from the reprints of the photo to charity...one good cause would be HIV prevention! In the UK FaceBook was seen as a contact for people being treated for STDs...

The longer Anthony Weiner thinks that Andrew Breitbart is an honorable person, the bigger fool his constituents will see him for and not the smart legislator he based his career on.

posted by Anonymous : 1:44 PM

Why are you still posting?

Hang your head and crawl away.

posted by Randall S. : 1:57 PM

Joe, I've been enjoying the sudden influx of jack asses commenting on here. In time, they will all be gone.

This story interests me most in that I can't see why anyone cares about such things anymore. If he used government resources to do this, well, does that really matter either? Are there government employees who don't use government resources for personal things? I seriously doubt it. In any case, the whole thing stinks from top to bottom, and it's not just Weiner that is guilty of shenanigans of some sort or other here. I still think you have the best, least biased explanation for events here. Agree about the fact that people admit to bad things they never did all the time, when it will keep them from getting nailed for even worse things.

posted by Gus : 2:30 PM

Joseph, check out Glenn Greenwald's latest. It pretty much sums up my feelings about the whole thing. Our press is pathetic and this is one of the best examples of that to date.

posted by Gus : 2:48 PM

Anonymous@10:44:

Under US law, Weiner owns the copyright to the photo already, assuming he was the photographer. He doesn't need to take any action to secure the right.

A statement issued on his website says Breitbart "categorically rejects the transparent effort to chill his constitutionally protected free speech and, to reiterate, looks forward to exercising his full and broad discovery rights." The statement also says that Larry O'Connor, the head of Breitbart.tv, was named in the suit.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/shirley-sherrod-sues-andrew-breitbart_n_822704.html

posted by Anonymous : 5:07 PM

Why would a Congressman do something this stupid? Arrogance, hubris are possibilities. He may be a really sick puppy, who finds it easier to have s*x long distance, through m@sturbation stimulated by non-physical interaction with strangers. Not uncommon as one might think and hard to stop if one has this problem. If that is true, he should not have married -- or entered Congress.

djmm

posted by djmm : 6:14 PM

Joe - People weren't "incensed" over your claim that Breitbart engaged in blackmail over Weiner. The ones who can't stand you were crowing that you are sounding loonier than ever. The ones who like your blog (myself included) are simply saddened to see you keep digging the credibility hole you started when you decided to defend Weiner to the limits of credulity and beyond.

And, Joe - it is not blackmail when someone demands that another person do the right thing and tell the truth or they'll do it for them. You should save your fire for Breitbart for when he actually does screw up. (Although you've probably blown your chance now to be credible in uncovering any bad behavior in that regard).

Finally, if I were you, I would stop using the term "hubris" to refer to others in light of the past week of your posts and the denouement. It takes someone lacking a fair amount of self-awareness to be proven so wrong so spectacularly in a public forum and then blithely accuse the person who was right of hubris.

Just guessing, but: If you were famous -- if columnists wrote about the women you dated, if you had to worry about paparazzi, if you had to worry about gossip -- you might well learn to appreciate (and perhaps prefer) online relationships. Nothing sick about it, really.

And we're not necessarily talking about what they call cybersex: For many men, seduction is sexier than sex itself.

Might one become addicted to cyber relationships? Yeah. But an addict always learns all the tricks.

You don't use Twitter, which is simply too porous. Frankly, even email would be a bad idea for someone famous.

Is IRC still around? I think so. I don't know if those AOL chat rooms are ongoing. In fact, learning that AOL was still in business came as something of a surprise. But there has to be some other forum or app like that out there where people can meet anonymously. (More or less anonymously: There are geeks who can trace IPs.)

My old boss was positive that Second Life was going to revolutionize the internet. It didn't. But it's still around, and provides a way for people to meet other people.

Bottom line: Even if you are unfamous and unattached, you should never give up a cloak of anonymity until you get to know the other person.

And honestly, I have never met anyone in my entire life who would send a dick shot (non-anonymously) to a woman he did not know and whose reaction he could not predict. Perhaps your experience of "pervs" is wider than mine?

As much as you hate Breitbart, he wasn't to blame for any of this, Weiner is.

You keep digging your hole deeper with accusations of blackmail.

If Breitbart said something like this, it would not be blackmail. "X event happened. Either you tell the media about it or I will."

However, if Breitbart said, "X event happened either give me $$$ or I tell everyone." Then you have a case for blackmail.

- Wodun

posted by Anonymous : 7:57 PM

run dmc: "And, Joe - it is not blackmail when someone demands that another person do the right thing and tell the truth or they'll do it for them."

Arguably, "blackmail" is "le mot juste." If not, suggest another mot. When no crime has been committed, why should we grant Breitbart the right to determine what is the right thing and who should say what?

"You should save your fire for Breitbart for when he actually does screw up."

I rarely have written about Breitbart in the past, and actually, I've rarely spoken about him in connection with this. There were only one or two posts (if memory serves) about the O'Keefe thing, and none at all about Sharrod. Although I have indeed used the term "Breitbart's crew" (and similar terms) for his sources. But since he himself was obviously fretting about those sources, that's hardly controversial.

However, right now he is proffering a really wacky theory that Weiner masterminded a conspiracy against him (Breitbart). Why should anyone be afraid to call him out on that?

Wanna talk about credibility? Previously, Breitbart has posited an ultra-paranoid theories that the entire left-wing media is somehow the creation of the Soviet Union. Seriously:

I wrote about the Yfrog security hole. That turned out to be correct. Yfrog changed their policies. I pointed to the work, done by Tommy Christopher and others, on "Dan Wolfe" and Mike Slate. Nobody has seriously questioned Christopher's reporting. And yes, I still think that no-one in his right mind would send a crotch shot to a woman he does not know and whose reaction he cannot gauge. I think Weiner just wants the business behind him, and I think that he was worried that Breitbart would release the as-yet unseen photo.

Do you honestly think that THOSE are weird opinons? Meanwhile, Breitbart's "Soviet" theory is NOT weird?

By what standard?

If Breitbart can be basking in newfound media "credibility" after he has barked out all sorts of weird John Birchian nonsense, I have nothing to worry about. Even a writer who argues that the Incredible Hulk is real would still have more credibility than Breitbart.

And if our culture has deteriorated to the point where outrageous John Birchian paranoia is considered non-controversial -- again, why worry? It's all going to hell in a handbasket anyways. So just speak your mind, then sit back and watch the apocalypse.

I write to write. Never cared about the audience. When you start caring about whether people like you, you stop being free.

"America is in a media war. It is an extension of the Cold War that never ended but simply shifted to an electronic front. The war between freedom and statism ended geographically when the Berlin Wall fell. But the existential battle never ceased. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles the new weapon was language and education, and the international left had successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out.

"And yes, I still think that no-one in his right mind would send a crotch shot to a woman he does not know and whose reaction he cannot gauge. I think Weiner just wants the business behind him, and I think that he was worried that Breitbart would release the as-yet unseen photo."

In other words, you think that Rep. Weiner is either mentally unstable or he is now lying about sending the famous crotch shot. That pretty much sums it up, right?

posted by DJH : 9:10 PM

It is somewhat ironic: The counter-revolutionary "party" HAS naturally taken at face value what Marx/Engelswrote in The Manifesto : All of history is a history of class struggle.""THE" left has NOT yet understood this.So, conceptual ideologists -like Breitbart- are actually right. Its named "preemptive counterevolution"-If You are not with them, You are against them. They ACT on it.->

posted by Anonymous : 9:34 PM

"In other words, you think that Rep. Weiner is either mentally unstable or he is now lying about sending the famous crotch shot. That pretty much sums it up, right?"

Heh heh. Well, at least you needed only about three or four restatements of my position to be able to summarize it with reasonable accuracy. That puts you ahead of numerous others. Why do these things always turn into reading comprehension tests?

Let me clear: I do not think for one second that Weiner is mentally unstable. He just came to enjoy the game of seduction and wanted to continue to play that game without the bother and hassle of a physical relationship.

With Breitbart holding that photo in reserve, I think Weiner will say whatever it takes to make sure that it stays hidden.

One (antagonistic) reader has suggested that the threat of revealing that hidden photo (and perhaps worse) could affect Weiner's policy. That idea has started to gnaw at me. If the policy stances change, then we shall have to presume that something serious has occurred behind the scenes. But so far, I don't think it will come to that.

"Heh heh. Well, at least you needed only about three or four restatements of my position to be able to summarize it with reasonable accuracy. That puts you ahead of numerous others. Why do these things always turn into reading comprehension tests?"

My reason is that I think that what you are suggesting seems so laughably absurd that it is necessary to make sure you are actually saying what I think you're saying. You really do think that Rep. Weiner sent multiple suggestive photos of himself to young women who aren't his wife...but not the one that you are convinced was a hack of some sort. You believe this because "[your] brain refuses to accept the possibility" that you were wrong to begin with.

I'm just trying to make sure I know where you stand on this. Thanks for being understanding.

posted by DJH : 10:51 PM

Some of your commenters have a serious misunderstanding of blackmail. It's still a criminal offense even if money is not involved. All it takes is some potential damage to the target or a benefit to the blackmailer to make it a crime. Defaming someone while holding out the threat of more damning defamations if they don't go along is certainly blackmail. And the moral basis here is worrying. As Glenn Greenwald points out, this is about targeting people's personal lives. The idiots who believe that politicians should have no privacy are applying the standards of TV soap operas which will result in only practiced fraudsters and criminals running for office. Certainly, no ordinary human being with any kind of human failures (as most of us have), will run the risk of being trashed by unprincipled political opponents in this way. You get what you pay for. If politicians are not permitted to have private lives then you will end up getting only seasoned crooks.

posted by wxyz : 10:53 PM

Sigh. Now you display reading comprehension problems once again.

"You really do think that Rep. Weiner sent multiple suggestive photos of himself to young women who aren't his wife...but not the one that you are convinced was a hack of some sort."

First, there was nothing wrong with his exchanging photos before his marriage. And as for the post-marriage situation, that is between the congressman and Huma.

Now, here's where you fail to follow me.

I have said, oh, only about one hundred times now that I refuse to believe that

1. Weiner sent a crotch shot non-anonymously,

2. out of the blue to a woman he did not know and whose reaction he could not gauge,

3. using Twitter, a system that places ALL photos on public view,

4. at a time when he knew that his enemies were watching his every move on Twitter.

The other situations to which you made reference were not at all similar. He sent photos of himself piecemeal, starting with innocuous ones and leading up to naughtier ones, to women with whom he was developing an online relationship. He thus got to know them and felt he could trust them.

(Granted, it is an open question whether you ever truly KNOW the other person when you become involved in an online romance. People misrepresent themselves. I discussed this problem in my post. Nevertheless, millions of people are exchanging sexy online communications at this very moment.)

And in all of those other situations he used email, which is private. At least it is SUPPOSED to be private.

Millions of men -- and women, let me assure you -- are capable of acting according to the latter scenario. They will exchange photos with people they trust, using email or DCC or whatever the system is that Yahoo uses.

Nobody within my experience has or could ever do what Weiner confessed to.

I've met some very odd people -- odder than you could possibly imagine. But I never have met anyone who -- openly using his real name -- would send a crotch shot to a woman he does not know and whose reaction he cannot predict. All in a public forum with foes watching his every move.

Weiner's previous online romances shows that he knew the rudiments of self-protection. The fact that the images escaped into the open tells us 1. One or more of the women was not as trustworthy as she seemed, 2. One or more of the woman was a "honeytrap," or 3. One or more email account was hacked.

Can you think of any other possibilities?

I'm not saying you should agree with my argument. I'm saying that you should not mischaracterize the argument even of an enemy. As Oscar Wilde said, quotation can be slander when you gerrymander.

And as for the "confession" -- as I said, I accept all of it except for the part about the night of the 27th. Nevertheless, I would have done just as Weiner had done for the reasons stated in my piece.

If you don't think that anyone would ever admit to a wrong he did not actually commit -- I can link to an astounding article which revealed that 25% of convicts who were freed based on new DNA evidence had actually "confessed" to the crime with which they had been charged.

We know that photos were available as early as May 12. Breitbart's own sources said so. If Breitbart had released tprivate photos, he would have looked like a slime peddler and many would have sympathized with Weiner, no matter HOW bad the photos were.

This is especially true if the sources had obtained the photos via hacking (you can't discount the possibility, given Mark Slate's bragging about his abilities in that area) or via a ruse (posing as woman online, for example -- which happens a LOT, as you know.)

No, simply releasing the images would have backfired. It was necessary to create a situation where all the professional tut-tutters on teevee could intone "It's not the crime, it's the cover-up..." God knows that we've heard THAT one endlessly -- even though there was, in fact, no crime and no cover-up.

Now let's talk about William of Ockham (NOT Occam -- a mistake I've made myself):

The principle of ontological parsimony (as it was explained to me back in Phil 101) tasks us with fixing on the simplest explanation for ALL the relevant facts. And let's face it -- this is where debates become endless, because everyone argues about which facts are relevant, and everyone argues whether new facts are indeed facts. If I grant you the sole authority to toss away facts as "irrelevant," we might end up in a situation where (say) the only facts left in the basket leave the theory of the Earth-centered solar system as the simplest explanation.

Believe it or not, Ockham never actually said or wrote "Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." You've probably never encountered his actual formulation:

"For nothing ought to be posited without a reason given, unless it is self-evident (literally, known through itself) or known by experience or proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture."

Kinda different from the version you learned in school, huh?

The point, of course, is this: If you cite Ockham, you stipulate that "known by experience" is a valid criterion. And thus we come back to our present argument.

It is outside of my experience (and yours, if you are honest) that any man, especially a public figure, would non-anonymously send a crotch shot to a woman he does not know and cannot trust, via a system that simultaneously transmits that image to the world at large, even though he knows that foes are watching his every mood.

Thus, the words of William of Ockham compel me to work toward another explanation. Something simpler.

Hacking is pretty simple.

Perhaps now you would care to apply the principle of ontological parsimony to the following statement by Andrew Breitbart?

"America is in a media war. It is an extension of the Cold War that never ended but simply shifted to an electronic front. The war between freedom and statism ended geographically when the Berlin Wall fell. But the existential battle never ceased. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles the new weapon was language and education, and the international left had successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out."

In other words: There are people in the American media who say things that Breitbart doesn't like, and so we should blame the international communist conspiracy.

Why is it that nobody speaks of Ockham's razor when we hear shit like THAT?

> It is outside of my experience (and yours, if you are honest) that any man, especially a public figure, would non-anonymously send a crotch shot to a woman he does not know and cannot trust, via a system that simultaneously transmits that image to the world at large, even though he knows that foes are watching his every mood.

But isn't the flaw in your argument that you are trusting when they say they didn't know each other? Let's not forget that Gennette Nicole called him her "boyfriend." and weiner tweeted about the time in seattle. and she retweeted that tweet.

Isn't the simpler explanation that he is a lying politician and she would rather avoid being known as a politician's cyberhoochie?

And again, why would breitbart frame him for a "crime" he didn't commit when you stipulate he had him dead to rights on the something else?

And no i don't think breitbart cares if he is called a slime merchant. he seems to love liberal hate these days. if he wanted to cover his tracks there are far simpler ways than hacking his twitter account.

The reality is you are in love with your theory, and are refusing to let go.

But seriously, you have talked yourself into a corner where literally no proof could ever satisfy you.

"My reason is that I think that what you are suggesting seems so laughably absurd that it is necessary to make sure you are actually saying what I think you're saying."

THAT is by far the most illiterate sentence ever written on your commentary. It is apparent THAT someone missed the class on Strunk & White and other elements of style. That, or the monkeys employed by HB Gary are just poo-lobbing troglodytes.

Tools other than "Ockham's razor" ->" Of course the method of presentation must differ in form from that of inquiry. The latter has to appropriate the material in detail, to analyse its different forms of development, to trace out their inner connexion. Only after this work is done, can the actual movement be adequately described. If this is done successfully, if the life of the subject-matter is ideally reflected as in a mirror, then it may appear as if we had before us a mere a priori construction.

My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life process of the human brain, i.e., the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought. "

K. Marx, Afterword to the 2nd edition of the capital I. MEW 23.27

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p3.htm

posted by Anonymous : 10:33 AM

Joe

> A. Worthing: So we're back to calling Gennette a liar. The whole argument depends on that.

> Well, I see no reason to go there.

Right, so we shouldn't call Gennette a liar, instead we should call Breitbart a liar, hacking mastermind and extortionist. Do I about have that right?

Btw, your new post is equally ridiculous. Saying Breitbart is using the photo as a defensive measure is not the same as calling a person a blackmailer. at it means is he is holding fire until shot at. if you were in breitbart's position, you would behave differently?

"It is outside of my experience (and yours, if you are honest) that any man, especially a public figure, would non-anonymously send a crotch shot to a woman he does not know and cannot trust, via a system that simultaneously transmits that image to the world at large, even though he knows that foes are watching his every mood.

Thus, the words of William of Ockham compel me to work toward another explanation. Something simpler.

Hacking is pretty simple. "

Joe, So are you now saying he was hacked?!?!? I think a simpler explanation is what he said it was; he was thinking with his member while the little devil(ego) resting on his scrotum was telling him that he could get away with it. Why not...he has admittedly got away with it for six years.

I also think that is logical to conclude that he and the Seattle coed are both lying to put this behind them. Especially when you consider that he had already reached out to the adult movie star to ask for her to lie, in what seems remarkably similar in tone and overall content to her public response.

If Weiner had an (R) next to his name, I am sure you wouldn't dismiss this coincidence or his reference to his appearance on a TV show in Seattle time.

I get that the left hates Breitbart; really, really hates Breitbart. However, it does your arguments a disservice to ignore relevant evidence that speaks to the fact that both of them are probably lying about this.

“A. Worthing: So we're back to calling Gennette a liar. The whole argument depends on that.

Well, I see no reason to go there.

Well…Someone is a liar.Is it un-PC or wrong to question her statement? Earlier on, I would have said yes, however, the fact that he has tried to tamper with the public response from at least one of his other women should open this up for reasoned discussion. Why shouldn't/couldn't/wouldn't it be questioned now? Weiner defenders have clung to much less solid theories in his defense. (‘It looks more like an ,[choose one] arm, sausage, dildo,etc…) Really, WTF people. Oh, and John Stewart… I would love to strap you up to a lie detector and ask when the last time you saw the Congressman nude in order to make the statement that he was more Anthony and less Weiner. The over/under number starts at 0.

Hell, you even said that you think he was lying about the events of the 27th. You are right, he most likely is lying, however, I think your conclusion is wrong. I think the correct conclusion is that he has been in contact with the Seattle coed before and they are keeping a united front to move past this. Because you are correct, you don’t just send a crotch shot to someone you don’t know at random. (Though it appears that you can easily send it accidently to everyone who follows you on Twitter.)

I also think at the end of the day, if the police’s internet tracking sleuths’ did their thing, your hacking conclusion, as well as Weiner’s career, would be toast.~j